181
anthropology and archaeology research in this region, including historical data on
cultural materials and trading activities, support our view of several waves of migrations occuring into ISEA (Morseburg et al. 2016; Matsumura and Oxenham 2014;
Xu et al. 2012; Bellwood 1997). This model of ISEA settlements is in contrast to
those supporting a single common origin of various populations in this region, as a
result of one migration wave without major demographic changes since the
Pleistocene – see Donohue and Denham (2011) and Soares et al. (2016) and for a
discussion of these ideas. In particular, archaeological and linguistic data showed
two or more sources for the major spread of Neolithic culture in this region after the
Pleistocene. First settlements by the ancient Semang people followed by one from
north (Southern China/Indo-China) associated with the Austroasiatic Senoi
5000–6000 years ago and finally one more related to Austronesian-speaking population, who presently form the majority across the Asia-Pacific region (Blust 2013;
Xu et al. 2012; Bellwood 1997). These archaeological and linguistic reconstructions
of human dispersals in ISEA have received some new support from large-scale
genomic studies; i.e. that the genetic dating of Asian components observed in ISEA
populations does not predate population migration and expansion during the
Neolithic era (Lipson et al. 2014; Xu et al. 2012) and from morphological analysis
of dental traits; i.e. that the dental morphology variations observed between midHolocene to Neolithic populations were the result of demographic changes since
they are robust to environmental pressure, which is not consistent with the a common source of ancestral population in Peninsular Malaysia (Matsumura and
Oxenham 2014).
In more recent time, these earlier settlers in Peninsular Malaysia have been
genetically and linguistically influenced by contact with traders (Arab and
Indians) and by the large number of Chinese and Indian labourers brought in by
the British administration (Hussein et al. 2007). All these demographic changes
appeared in the genepools of modern inhabitants in Peninsular Malaysia
(Morseburg et al. 2016; Deng et al. 2015) and are captured in our Malaysian
Genetic Layer Cake Model of human settlement in Peninsular Malaysia.
Population history may not always be as accurately reflected in the genepools of
descendants as one might expect (Fix, 2000), but our extensive genetic research
has effectively revealed traces of various ancestral fractions in the DNA samples
collected from Orang Asli sub-populations in Peninsular Malaysia (Manaf et al.
2016; Norhalifah et al. 2016b; Syafawati et al. 2016; Tasnim et al. 2016; Deng
et al. 2015; NurWaliyuddin et al. 2015). This genetic complexity cannot be generated from a single wave of migration and contradicts any hypothesis that claims
that the Orang Asli tribes, with their distinct languages and material cultural heritages, are differentiated from a single ancestral population. This is in marked
contrast with the situation in Taiwan, where aboriginal populations are genuinely
derived from a single source but have become linguistically and culturally diverse
while remaining genetically homogeneous. Another valuable prospect towards
greater understanding of demographic history in this region should come from
analyses of ancient DNA (cf. current data from possibly admixed modern human
DNA) and new archaeological records.
A Multidisciplinary Account of the Orang Asli in Peninsular Malaysia
anthropology and archaeology research in this region, including historical data on
cultural materials and trading activities, support our view of several waves of migrations occuring into ISEA (Morseburg et al. 2016; Matsumura and Oxenham 2014;
Xu et al. 2012; Bellwood 1997). This model of ISEA settlements is in contrast to
those supporting a single common origin of various populations in this region, as a
result of one migration wave without major demographic changes since the
Pleistocene – see Donohue and Denham (2011) and Soares et al. (2016) and for a
discussion of these ideas. In particular, archaeological and linguistic data showed
two or more sources for the major spread of Neolithic culture in this region after the
Pleistocene. First settlements by the ancient Semang people followed by one from
north (Southern China/Indo-China) associated with the Austroasiatic Senoi
5000–6000 years ago and finally one more related to Austronesian-speaking population, who presently form the majority across the Asia-Pacific region (Blust 2013;
Xu et al. 2012; Bellwood 1997). These archaeological and linguistic reconstructions
of human dispersals in ISEA have received some new support from large-scale
genomic studies; i.e. that the genetic dating of Asian components observed in ISEA
populations does not predate population migration and expansion during the
Neolithic era (Lipson et al. 2014; Xu et al. 2012) and from morphological analysis
of dental traits; i.e. that the dental morphology variations observed between midHolocene to Neolithic populations were the result of demographic changes since
they are robust to environmental pressure, which is not consistent with the a common source of ancestral population in Peninsular Malaysia (Matsumura and
Oxenham 2014).
In more recent time, these earlier settlers in Peninsular Malaysia have been
genetically and linguistically influenced by contact with traders (Arab and
Indians) and by the large number of Chinese and Indian labourers brought in by
the British administration (Hussein et al. 2007). All these demographic changes
appeared in the genepools of modern inhabitants in Peninsular Malaysia
(Morseburg et al. 2016; Deng et al. 2015) and are captured in our Malaysian
Genetic Layer Cake Model of human settlement in Peninsular Malaysia.
Population history may not always be as accurately reflected in the genepools of
descendants as one might expect (Fix, 2000), but our extensive genetic research
has effectively revealed traces of various ancestral fractions in the DNA samples
collected from Orang Asli sub-populations in Peninsular Malaysia (Manaf et al.
2016; Norhalifah et al. 2016b; Syafawati et al. 2016; Tasnim et al. 2016; Deng
et al. 2015; NurWaliyuddin et al. 2015). This genetic complexity cannot be generated from a single wave of migration and contradicts any hypothesis that claims
that the Orang Asli tribes, with their distinct languages and material cultural heritages, are differentiated from a single ancestral population. This is in marked
contrast with the situation in Taiwan, where aboriginal populations are genuinely
derived from a single source but have become linguistically and culturally diverse
while remaining genetically homogeneous. Another valuable prospect towards
greater understanding of demographic history in this region should come from
analyses of ancient DNA (cf. current data from possibly admixed modern human
DNA) and new archaeological records.
A Multidisciplinary Account of the Orang Asli in Peninsular Malaysia